On 23.04.2025 22:41, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 23 Apr 2025, Lira, Victor M wrote: >> Continuing a discussion from before: >> >> On 4/22/2025 11:44 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution >>> when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. >>> >>> >>> On 23.04.2025 01:43, victorm.l...@amd.com wrote: >>>> memmove. >>>> - Tagged as `deliberate` for ECLAIR. >>>> >>>> + * - R5.5 >>>> + - Clashes between function-like macros and function names are >>>> + deliberate >>> They may or may not be deliberate, depending on context. I don't think it's >>> a >>> good move to deviate this more widely than necessary. If I get the >>> expression >>> above (in deviations.ecl) right, even >>> >>> void func1(int); >>> void func2(int); >>> >>> #define func1() func2(0) >>> #define func2() func1(0) >>> >>> would be deviated, which I don't think we want. Especially when, in a less >>> contrived scenario, the clash may not easily be visible. >> >> OK, I see the issue for different functions. Does it make sense to say it's >> deliberate when it's the same identifier? >> >> void func1(int); >> ... >> #define func1() func1(0) >> >> Could this be deviated? > > I think it makes sense to be clear in deviations.rst and the doc text in > deviations.ecl that we are referring to the same identifier. That we can > do. > > I am not sure it is possible to change the ecl rule accordingly to > narrow the check relaxation. If not possible, I'd keep it as it is in > this patch.
Isn't it a matter of producing a suitable regex? If not, I don't think we should put in too broad an Eclair rule, but then rather resort to e.g. SAF comments. Jan
